NHCraigT
NES Member
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
12/17/19 - Police: FedEx Delivery Driver Fatally Shoots Robbery Suspect In Lawndale, PA
- Thread starter NHCraigT
- Start date
"Could not disclose their internal policies". Fedex is screwed no matter how they answer.
"Not allowed to carry" - Time to rob more Fedex trucks because they're either unarmed or will be afraid of getting fired if they are.
"Allowed to carry" - Antis will be outraged that drivers are approaching houses with a gun on them.
"Not allowed to carry" - Time to rob more Fedex trucks because they're either unarmed or will be afraid of getting fired if they are.
"Allowed to carry" - Antis will be outraged that drivers are approaching houses with a gun on them.
ReluctantDecoy
NES Member
Too bad that UPS driver from a week or two ago wasn't carrying. Could have prevented the initial car jacking that lead to the shootout on the highway.
greencobra
NES Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 27,255
- Likes
- 26,754
is the scooter the perps getaway ride?
50 bucks says this incedent was why the driver was carrying in the first place.
That's exactly why.
Also going to stand on a limb and say that the fedex guy was using fmj's and had a pass through. At this point uts all speculation anyway so I'm just going to speculate on the side of the driver. There was no back shooting, just over penetration.
pastera
NES Member
I would say the perp probably did have a few entry wounds in his back - doesn't make less of a good shoot after the UPS guy already taking a round to the gut. Close quarters and he dumped rounds until he able to recognize the conclusion of the threatening situation.
Unless he went back for a "screw you" shot, it is an easy decision to find valid self defense.
I'll go so far as to say even if the driver fired first it is still a good shoot
Unless he went back for a "screw you" shot, it is an easy decision to find valid self defense.
I'll go so far as to say even if the driver fired first it is still a good shoot
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2015
- Messages
- 1,732
- Likes
- 1,206
Unfortun
Unfortunately, the driver's employment with Fed Ex will most likely be history as well. A friend of mine lost a good job with CSX because he had a shotgun in his truck on company property. CSX railroad police are the only ones allowed by company workplace rules to possess and carry firearms and other weapons on company property and rights-of-way. A co-worker ratted him out and he lost a good job.
StevieP
NES Member
Good shoot. Definitely one of those "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" scenarios. Eff FEDEX.
Guaran-damn-tee if FEDEX lets him go he'll have other trucking companies offer him employment with a raise, and allow him to carry.
Guaran-damn-tee if FEDEX lets him go he'll have other trucking companies offer him employment with a raise, and allow him to carry.
El_Guapo77
NES Member
Good for the driver i know fedex express guys cant carry but because ground is considered independent contractors i wonder if this guy was able to hope he doesnt lose his job
in part due to all the online purchasing, UPS and fedex are getting targeted like crazy. it's absolute bullshit that a company can profit by putting someone in a dangerous position then forbid them from self protection. there's got to be a damn strong lawsuit somewhere buried in this practice. even if only like 10% of drivers were armed it would provide significant "herd protection" to the other drivers.
eboos
NES Member
Doubt it. Quite the contrary actually. If a driver shoots at someone while in the performance of their duties the company is liable as respondeat superior. If they hit a bystander, the company is liable. If there is anything wrong with the shoot, the company is liable. On the flip side: if a driver is killed by a robber while on the job it is simply an insurance claim with a capped payment.
Not saying it is right, far from it. Just saying it is what it is.
KBCraig
NES Member
The shame is that it doesn't work the same way for police agencies.
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
One problem in this industry, beyond fedex, is sometimes you have to go places where guns are completely verboten. Like literally driving the truck onto the
property with the gun in it, can put you in harms way. Think military bases, public schools and that kind of thing. Obviously guys with regular routes would "know" if it was going to fly or
not.
-Mike
Meh, just don't advocate it, not sure how the company is extra liable at that point. Also for a company like UPS where a driver could kill a bus full of nuns, it shouldn't be that hard to
insure against that kind of misconduct etc anyways with the size of the company and the insurance they probably have.
I don't see how a "gun" is extra risk vs a driver beating a guy to death. I mean yeah, in an actuarial table the latter is uncommonly rare, but it still exists.
IMHO most corporate weapons policies arent based off actual risks, they're based off imaginary ones that people who like collecting on billable hours like to invent to justify their
existence.
-Mike
Similar threads
